"they would not have channels -- any channels -- go dark, ever. CourtTV would not have gone black earlier this year. When you fight for the common man, you stand up and fight: you don't resort to litigation or mediation. You don't have pissing contests with Viacom."...Beg to differ...Is it your assertion that E* should accept any and all price increases then gleefully pass off these to the consumer?..That's looking out for no one's interests but the producer...I find it incredible how some of you are perfectly willing to spend everyone else's money to satisfy the programming needs of a few..Court TV for example was not missed by many..Admittedly, the channel has a small but vocal following.
The situation with YES is similar..YES is an expensive channel. The producers set the price and whichever provider wishes to pay, gets the rights to broadcast the channel to their customers..Since E* believes the terms to be unfair to the Company and their subs the channel is not offered. I see nothing wrong with this..It's good business and it protects the consumer. We as consumers have choices. If one wishes to view YES programming badly enough, they may go to the many cable co's which carry the service or they may go to D*...It's that simple.The cricket match exclusive argument doesn't wash. Not eaxactly national interest in cricket here.
Saying that DISH is figthing to keep the subscription cost flat is a cop-out. Subscribers have a choice; 95% have cable available as one of them. Sat tv is a luxury item. If a sub can't afford a $1/month increase then he's probably having trouble paying other bills too. COP OUT.
If YES costs marginally more than other RSN's, it's justified. They have more viewers than any other RSN in the nation. In turn the distributor can charge more for commercials. COP OUT. Even Scott concedes that lack of YES is a prime ingredient in Dish's lousy NY penetration. YES is a money-maker, not a cost.
Cricket is pertinent insofar as DISH has tried to position itself as the premier foreign-language programming distributor. The Indian population is well-educated, solid earners and generally good citizens here. India/Pakistan is huge to them, and therefore very important to Dish meeting its goals (and having an exclusive over its competition).
Providers don't have to accept any and all price increases, and I did not suggest it. They SHOULD, if they CARE about their viewers, make solid and sincere efforts to NEGOTIATE. Charlie NEVER negotiates. He takes a position and if the broadcaster doesn't cave, then Charlie goes directly to the press and makes it a media issue.
Once the press is involved, it's no longer a negotiation. It's a plea for sympathy. It happens every time. COP OUT.
FYI: I never suggested it was wrong for DISH not to carry YES. It's clearly their prerogative, and a strategic decision. But it's also that kind of short-sighted decision that has them overlooked when MLB seeks a strategic partner. Charlie wants to cry poverty, then cry sympathy, all the way to the bank. He wants everything, for free, then to turn a profit on it. See it for what it is, this has nothing to do with baseball fans and is entirely consistent with Cheap Charlie behavior.
If Charlie went fishing, it seems you've taken the bait.
